brights
Bamboo Tree
so, I missed it.) -- Michael
Michael Hand
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
College Station TX 77843-4237 USA
979-845-5660, fax 979-845-0458
=============================
>
> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
>
>
>
>
>
> professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of
> Freedom Evolves
> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
> bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or
> the Easter Bunny - or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a
variety
> of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a
> disbelief in black magic - and life after death.
>
>
> The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento,
Calif.,
> who thought our social group - which has a history stretching back to the
> Enlightenment, if not before - could stand an image-buffing and that a
fresh
> name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright"
> is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
>
>
> You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily.
> That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police
> officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the
> military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our
> colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a
> commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we
> even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy
> members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone
> of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because
> they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
>
>
> As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the
> habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of
protection.
> If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But
> now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable
> yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
>
>
> Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a
silent
> majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled
and
> condemned by those in power - by politicians who go out of their way to
> invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the
> side of the angels."
>
>
> A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that
27
> million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference.
> That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to
> admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than
a
> religious one - more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
>
>
> Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to
turn
> every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to
offend
> our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.
>
>
> But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even
have
> to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making
> religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among
> us.
>
>
> From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk
vote-getter.
> And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration
> has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the
role
> of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the
> Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the
> United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that
tolerates
> all religions and - yes - all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as
> well.
>
>
> I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together
> leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally
> about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward
the
> end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as
a
> bright.
>
>
> Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest
> knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.
>
>
> Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable
> passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure
> these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say,
> in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had
> calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
>
>
> In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel
laureates,
> were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark
> drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and
students
> alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves
> were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want
> most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and
> Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
>
>
> If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in
> American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding
> brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I
> appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an
> academic like me - or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a
> similar call in England - in some parts of the country admitting you're a
> bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
>
>
> But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am
> neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks
> or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology,
> you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or
> agnostics or other godless folk.
>
>
> And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote
> for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright?
> Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you
> think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of
> police?
>
>
> Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling
> chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming
politician
> trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my
best
> friends are brights."
>
ddtomkins
<micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Michael Hand
>Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
>
>> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
>> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
>
>> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
>> bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
>> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ... God.
>>... we share a disbelief in ... life after death.
>> ...
>> You may well be a bright.
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Ciao, Dwight Rejoice always.
Dwight
Rejoice always.
{Please remove .nomorespam from my email addr before replying.}
George R. Welch
ddtomkins <ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:07:10 GMT, "Bamboo Tree"
><micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Michael Hand
>>Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
>>
>>> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
>>> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
>>
>>> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
>>> bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
>>> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ... God.
>>>... we share a disbelief in ... life after death.
>>> ...
>>> You may well be a bright.
Dwight,
I wonder why you cut the few words between "in" and
"God" and replaced them with the ellipsis. Same for the third
ellipsis. There were very few words and they were important to
the meaning of the passage, but still you cut them. It leaves
the impression that you are trying to do something dishonest
with the quote.
--George
>And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
>Ciao, Dwight Rejoice always.
>Dwight
>Rejoice always.
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
ddtomkins
Welch) wrote:
>>>> ... A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
>>>> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ... God.
>>>>... we share a disbelief in ... life after death.
>>>> ...
>>>> You may well be a bright.
>
>>And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
>>Ciao, Dwight Rejoice always.
>>Dwight
>>Rejoice always.
>
> I wonder why you cut the few words between "in" and
>"God" and replaced them with the ellipsis. Same for the third
>ellipsis. There were very few words and they were important to
>the meaning of the passage, but still you cut them. It leaves
>the impression that you are trying to do something dishonest
>with the quote.
>
> --George
>
Significant remains, the rest is obfuscation.
Ciao,
George R. Welch
ddtomkins <ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2003 09:44:52 -0600, grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu (George R.
>Welch) wrote:
>
>> I wonder why you cut the few words between "in" and
>>"God" and replaced them with the ellipsis. Same for the third
>>ellipsis. There were very few words and they were important to
>>the meaning of the passage, but still you cut them. It leaves
>>the impression that you are trying to do something dishonest
>>with the quote.
>
Well I guess that explains it for sure. Thanks,
--George
Chris Menzel
<ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> said:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:07:10 GMT, "Bamboo Tree"
> <micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael Hand
> >Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
> >
> >> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
> >> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
> >
> >> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
> >> bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
> >> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ... God.
> >>... we share a disbelief in ... life after death.
> >> ...
> >> You may well be a bright.
>
> And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
No wonder?? No wonder *what*? That "brights" are really among the
minions of...could it be...SATAN? That SATAN planted the word their
minds? Or that it glorifies SATAN to be called a "bright"? Good
grief.
It's mostly just sort of interesting that generally educated people can
still take the idea of Satan hiding behind every action, event, or
belief that runs counter to fundamentalist dogma seriously. What's
scary is to think that this sort of goofy mythology actually plays a
role in the thinking of people like John Ashcroft who wield real power
-- that has all the ingredients for our own American version of the
Taliban.
THAT SAID, if the "brights" are really serious in their plea for
tolerance, their choice of a name was idiotic, as it is obviously meant
to imply that if you're not a bright, then you're not bright -- which is
not only offensive and elitist, but obviously and verifiably false.
Not very bright. The smug tone of Dennett's article suggests the choice
was in fact fully intentional; his plea for tolerance therefore struck
me as disingenous. To his credit, the irony of a wealthy, white,
privileged college professor pleading for tolerance was not lost on him;
but really, is there a genuine problem here? I mean, outside of the
isolated incident here and there, how often is it *really* the case that
atheists are persecuted or discriminated against for their beliefs? The
whole thing struck me as the atheist equivalent of the completely whacky
fundamentalist whinge that religious liberties in America are under
attack.
-chris
George R. Welch
In article <slrnbumsk3....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> but really, is there a genuine problem here? I mean, outside of
> the isolated incident here and there, how often is it *really*
> the case that atheists are persecuted or discriminated against
> for their beliefs?
I can't really speak for the atheists, but I'm very
surprised to see you ask that question. The fact that you
observe little discrimination does not mean that it isn't there.
My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet,
just to avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes
it less apparent to you. I've met several atheists who go
to church regularly just for, as one puts it, "protective
coloration." There is a huge negative bias in our society
toward atheists. I doubt if any person who admitted to
being an atheist could be elected to a school board, for
example. We often see news clippings about persecution of
atheist children. I think it compares to being homosexual
in some sense. The persecution is probably more widespread,
but less severe. And the psychological hurt from being forced
into the closet is surely just as real.
Have you forgotten that it was none other than the
president of the United States of America, George Herbert
Walker Bush, who declared that atheists should not be considered
citizens?
> The whole thing struck me as the atheist equivalent of the
> completely whacky fundamentalist whinge that religious liberties
> in America are under attack.
Well, I think it's totally different. Atheists are
real, intelligent, loving people who are very frequently
discriminated against on no other basis than their lack of
religion. I certainly agree that the coining of the term
"bright" was counterproductive. But just because one guy
makes his case badly doesn't mean the case is not sound.
Chris Menzel
<grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
>
> In article <slrnbumsk3....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > but really, is there a genuine problem here? I mean, outside of
> > the isolated incident here and there, how often is it *really*
> > the case that atheists are persecuted or discriminated against
> > for their beliefs?
>
> I can't really speak for the atheists, but I'm very surprised to see
> you ask that question. The fact that you observe little
> discrimination does not mean that it isn't there.
Well, thanks for that George! Silly me, I thought reality was
determined by my observations! :-)
> My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet, just to
> avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes it less apparent to
> you. I've met several atheists who go to church regularly just for,
> as one puts it, "protective coloration."
Of course I believe you, but I myself have never encountered such an
individual. Frankly I would consider any such person to be not only
dishonest but a coward.
> There is a huge negative bias in our society toward atheists. I doubt
> if any person who admitted to being an atheist could be elected to a
> school board, for example.
I'd like to see some statistics on that, but offhand I'd agree that's
probably true in many, perhaps most, school districts. But it doesn't
follow that this indicates a bias against *atheism*. Seems to me that
an equally plausible explanation is that atheism is correlated with
*liberalism*, which alone would be enough to ruin a candidate's hopes in
a conservative district -- and it seems that *most* school districts are
conservative these days. That said, there are no doubt plenty of people
stupid enough to think atheists cannot have high, even conservative,
moral values. But even if that view is common enough to keep someone
off a schoolboard, that *still* doesn't indicate a "huge negative bias
in our society towards atheists."
> We often see news clippings about persecution of atheist children.
I only recall one case involving a zealous dad who didn't want her kid
subjected to the pledge of allegiance of something. But again I'm just
speaking from my own experience here.
> I think it compares to being homosexual in some sense.
Well, you do say "in some sense", which makes the claim vacuous, as
anything is similar to anything in some sense. But the sense you
suggest is clearly a robust one, and frankly, I find the comparison
ludicrous. Homosexuals still have to live in *real* fear of exposure,
harrassment, and violence all over the country, and still have to endure
appalling and open hostility and discrimination -- from snide remarks to
job and housing discrimination, inability to marry, threats of
imprisonment and murder. There are no atheist Matthew Shepards. The
comparison is ludicrous.
> The persecution is probably more widespread, but less severe.
To say the least.
> And the psychological hurt from being forced into the closet is surely
> just as real.
See above.
> Have you forgotten that it was none other than the president of the
> United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush, who declared
> that atheists should not be considered citizens?
Presidents have said any number of idiotic things that don't necessarily
reflect societal trends. The current Bush being perhaps the most
dramatic example.
> > The whole thing struck me as the atheist equivalent of the
> > completely wacky fundamentalist whinge that religious liberties in
> > America are under attack.
>
> Well, I think it's totally different. Atheists are real,
> intelligent, loving people ...
I couldn't agree more. Some of my best friends are atheists. ;-)
(Most of them, come to think of it...)
> ... who are very frequently discriminated against on no other basis
> than their lack of religion.
And of course that assertion, which you've not given us any more reason
to believe, is exactly what I'm questioning.
> I certainly agree that the coining of the term "bright" was
> counterproductive. But just because one guy makes his case badly
> doesn't mean the case is not sound.
Just so. Do you find even the remotest suggestion of such an inference
in my post, George?
-chris
Stanley Wood
George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote:
> Well, I think it's totally different. Atheists are
>real, intelligent, loving people who are very frequently
>discriminated against on no other basis than their lack of
>religion.
I wouldn't say that atheists lack religion so much as their religion
lacks a god.
In my experience, most professing atheists have significantly more
religious fervor than most professing Christians.
Stanley
George R. Welch
In article <slrnbv37o2....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 28 Dec 2003 12:49:43 -0600, George R. Welch
> <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
> >
> > My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet, just to
> > avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes it less apparent to
> > you. I've met several atheists who go to church regularly just for,
> > as one puts it, "protective coloration."
>
> Of course I believe you, but I myself have never encountered such an
> individual. Frankly I would consider any such person to be not only
> dishonest but a coward.
OK, then. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the opposite.
--George
Jonathan Jones
> In article <slrnbumsk3....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> but really, is there a genuine problem here? I mean, outside of
>> the isolated incident here and there, how often is it *really*
>> the case that atheists are persecuted or discriminated against
>> for their beliefs?
>
> I can't really speak for the atheists, but I'm very
> surprised to see you ask that question. The fact that you
> observe little discrimination does not mean that it isn't there.
> My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet,
> just to avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes
> it less apparent to you. I've met several atheists who go
> to church regularly just for, as one puts it, "protective
> coloration." There is a huge negative bias in our society
> toward atheists.
That's contrary to my experience, even in conservative parts of Texas. I
mean, who really gives a damn what your religion is, aside from Mormon
missionaries?
> I doubt if any person who admitted to
> being an atheist could be elected to a school board, for
> example.
Admitted to it, or harped on it? I could imagine someone who replied "None
of your business, but since you asked, I'm an atheist" getting elected. I
could also imagine a too-outspoken Christian *not* getting elected, because
people don't like the idea of the school administration preaching to their
kids.
> We often see news clippings about persecution of
> atheist children. I think it compares to being homosexual
> in some sense. The persecution is probably more widespread,
> but less severe. And the psychological hurt from being forced
> into the closet is surely just as real.
One of the main jobs of kids is to persecute other kids. They do a good job
of it, and they would find a way, even if there were no atheists. Atheist
kids don't have it any worse than fat kids, tall kids, short kids, or kids
who wear large crucifixes around their necks.
> Have you forgotten that it was none other than the
> president of the United States of America, George Herbert
> Walker Bush, who declared that atheists should not be considered
> citizens?
The man is entitled to his opinion, though to be fair he said "I don't know
that" atheists should be considered citizens, and he probably meant "good
citizens". As far as I know he never advocated revoking the citizenship of
atheists.
>> The whole thing struck me as the atheist equivalent of the
>> completely whacky fundamentalist whinge that religious liberties
>> in America are under attack.
>
> Well, I think it's totally different. Atheists are
> real, intelligent, loving people who are very frequently
> discriminated against on no other basis than their lack of
> religion.
Nah.
-Jon J.
ddtomkins
<cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:03:59 GMT, ddtomkins
><ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> said:
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:07:10 GMT, "Bamboo Tree"
>> <micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Hand
>> >Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
>> >
>> >> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
>> >> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
>> >
>> >> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
>> >> bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
>> >> supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ... God.
>> >>... we share a disbelief in ... life after death.
>> >> ...
>> >> You may well be a bright.
>>
>> And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
>
>No wonder?? No wonder *what*? That "brights" are really among the
>minions of...could it be...SATAN?
It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of
righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Ciao,
Chris Menzel
<ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> said:
> On 25 Dec 2003 23:28:06 GMT, Chris Menzel
> <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:03:59 GMT, ddtomkins
> ><ddtomkins....@hotmail.com> said:
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:07:10 GMT, "Bamboo Tree"
> >> <micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael Hand
> >> >Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
> >> >
> >> >> Transcript of "The Bright Stuff"
> >> >> a New York Times op-ed piece from DANIEL C. DENNETT
> >> >
> >> >> The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What
> >> >> is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed
> >> >> to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ...
> >> >> ...
> >> >> You may well be a bright.
> >>
> >> And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
> >
> >No wonder?? No wonder *what*? That "brights" are really among the
> >minions of...could it be...SATAN?
>
> It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of
> righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Who said anything about masquerading as a servant of righteousness?
"Brights" (stupid name notwithstanding) are simply people who have
certain beliefs. They make no claims about any connection between those
beliefs and moral virtue.
Satan has clouded the left side of your brain.
-chris
Chris Menzel
I was nodding off when I wrote the original post (as the twisted syntax
of a couple of passages indicate), and I withdraw *half* the remark.
The churchgoing atheist/chameleon is not necessarily a coward. That
said, it is hard for me to conceive of a case (set in modern-day
America) in which one would consider it a *virtue* to live this sort of
double life, as you seem to suggest. I don't know how it could be
classified as anything other than dishonest actively to disbelieve in
God's existence and yet intentionally to act in such a way as to mislead
others into forming a false belief to the contrary.
-chris
George R. Welch
Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On 31 Dec 2003 08:07:57 -0600,
>George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
>>
>> In article <slrnbv37o2....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
>> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 Dec 2003 12:49:43 -0600, George R. Welch
>> > <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
>> > >
>> > > My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet, just to
>> > > avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes it less apparent to
>> > > you. I've met several atheists who go to church regularly just for,
>> > > as one puts it, "protective coloration."
>> >
>> > Of course I believe you, but I myself have never encountered such an
>> > individual. Frankly I would consider any such person to be not only
>> > dishonest but a coward.
>>
>> OK, then. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the opposite.
>
> I was nodding off when I wrote the original post (as the
> twisted syntax of a couple of passages indicate), and I withdraw
> *half* the remark. The churchgoing atheist/chameleon is not
> necessarily a coward.
Thank you. It seemed (to me) like a rather hurtful
remark that was out of character. If you want more of my
opinion, the "chameleon" remark was unnecessary.
> That said, it is hard for me to conceive of a case (set in
> modern-day America) in which one would consider it a *virtue*
> to live this sort of double life, as you seem to suggest.
Sorry for the poor wording. I didn't mean to suggest
such behavior was a virtue, just that I feel strongly that it
isn't the opposite. It's a compassion thing.
--George
Chris Menzel
> In article <slrnbveh1j....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >On 31 Dec 2003 08:07:57 -0600,
> >George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
> >>
> >> In article <slrnbv37o2....@philebus.tamu.edu>,
> >> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 28 Dec 2003 12:49:43 -0600, George R. Welch
> >> > <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> said:
> >> > >
> >> > > My experience shows that atheists are largely in the closet, just to
> >> > > avoid that discrimination, and perhaps that makes it less apparent to
> >> > > you. I've met several atheists who go to church regularly just for,
> >> > > as one puts it, "protective coloration."
> >> >
> >> > Of course I believe you, but I myself have never encountered such an
> >> > individual. Frankly I would consider any such person to be not only
> >> > dishonest but a coward.
> >>
> >> OK, then. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the opposite.
> >
> > I was nodding off when I wrote the original post (as the
> > twisted syntax of a couple of passages indicate), and I withdraw
> > *half* the remark. The churchgoing atheist/chameleon is not
> > necessarily a coward.
>
> Thank you. It seemed (to me) like a rather hurtful
> remark that was out of character. If you want more of my
> opinion, the "chameleon" remark was unnecessary.
Sheesh, George; that characterization was nothing more than a
descriptive metaphor; don't you find it quite apropos? Isn't the
churchgoing atheist just blending in with her/his surroundings?
> > That said, it is hard for me to conceive of a case (set in
> > modern-day America) in which one would consider it a *virtue*
> > to live this sort of double life, as you seem to suggest.
>
> Sorry for the poor wording. I didn't mean to suggest
> such behavior was a virtue, just that I feel strongly that it
> isn't the opposite. It's a compassion thing.
Well, again, since I do not share your views about atheists constituting
a poor oppressed minority, I have a hard time dredging up much
compassion for the churchgoing atheist. Still just strikes me as flat
dishonest. Whatever happned to the courage of one's convictions? Maybe
it would help if you gave some examples of the sorts of consequences
that await said atheist were he/she outted. I really don't get it.
-chris
Chris Barnes
> constituting a poor oppressed minority,
To be honest, I believe that the biggest pressure (ie. oppression) comes
from being further and further away from the "middle ground" - in either
direction. An atheist who makes their views known, but isn't rabid
about it won't get much oppression. Same with a Christian who doesn't
try to convert everyone. You could even say this about the gay
community - those who are gay, but dress & act 'normally' and are in
monogomous relationships are - for the most part - generally accepted by
society. Those that are the in-your-face typee tend to generate (alot)
more oppression.
Of course just how much oppression a person senses will often depend on
where that undefined "middle ground" is. Being middle-size town Texas
would tend to have that middle ground be further right than, for
example, large city New England.
> I have a hard time dredging up much compassion for the churchgoing
> atheist. Still just strikes me as flat dishonest. Whatever happned
> to the courage of one's convictions?
I would agree with you here. I would no more respect someone who is an
athiest who goes to church than I would a Christian who denies their
faith when it would be inconvienant.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Bamboo Tree
> from being further and further away from the "middle ground" - in either
> direction. An atheist who makes their views known, but isn't rabid
> about it won't get much oppression. Same with a Christian who doesn't
> try to convert everyone. You could even say this about the gay
> community - those who are gay, but dress & act 'normally' and are in
> monogomous relationships are - for the most part - generally accepted by
> society. Those that are the in-your-face typee tend to generate (alot)
> more oppression.
"Oppression" strikes me as a somewhat unfortunate term here, because the
oppression of atheists is hardly comparable to the oppression of some ethnic
minorities, or of gays and lesbians, or of women, in the contemporary US.
It strikes me, a nonrabid atheist, as undeniable that some small degree of
oppression exists, but the term is so politically loaded that it should be
avoided on this issue. There is bias, prejudice, and discrimination against
atheists, rabid or not.
The suggestion that gays who "dress and act 'normally'" are accepted in
society is just insane, if "accepted in society" means "not oppressed".
>
> Of course just how much oppression a person senses will often depend on
> where that undefined "middle ground" is. Being middle-size town Texas
> would tend to have that middle ground be further right than, for
> example, large city New England.
I dunno about about how much oppression a person "senses", but if we're
talking about how much oppression a person is subjected to, your comment
amounts to a confession that an individual in question is more oppressed in
middle-sized-town TX than in large-city New England. It's true (you do
agree, right?) and it's lamentable (ditto, since oppression is a bad
thing?).
> > I have a hard time dredging up much compassion for the churchgoing
> > atheist. Still just strikes me as flat dishonest. Whatever happned
> > to the courage of one's convictions?
>
> I would agree with you here. I would no more respect someone who is an
> athiest who goes to church than I would a Christian who denies their
> faith when it would be inconvienant.
No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her religion
that she not be deceptive in this way. I think. Some xians, anyway: those
who accept the teaching that a xian should never deny her religious beliefs.
Don't many xians hold this? My guess is that most atheists would advocate
lying, if the alternative has bad enough consequences. At any rate, most
American atheists have no religious beliefs, and so their deception will not
violate their religious beliefs.
--
=============================
Michael Hand
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ
College Station TX 77843-4237 USA
mh...@tamu.edu
979-845-5660, fax 979-845-0458
Chris Barnes
> The suggestion that gays who "dress and act 'normally'" are
> accepted in society is just insane, if "accepted in society" means
> "not oppressed".
The comment had a singular purpose - to illustrate that they face less
oppression than those who are more "in your face" about it. There was
no implication that they felt a zero level.
> I dunno about about how much oppression a person "senses", but if
> we're talking about how much oppression a person is subjected to,
> your comment amounts to a confession that an individual in question
> is more oppressed in middle-sized-town TX than in large-city New
> England. It's true (you do agree, right?) and it's lamentable
> (ditto, since oppression is a bad thing?).
Not at all. A hard-core southern Baptist Christian is liable to feel a
great deal of oppression in large-city New England. Or San Fransico.
Or Utah (honestly, probably MORE in Utah).
The amount of oppression a person feels is a function of where they are
in relation to the majority mores of their locale.
> No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her
> religion that she not be deceptive in this way. I think. Some
> xians, anyway: those who accept the teaching that a xian should never
> deny her religious beliefs. Don't many xians hold this? My guess is
> that most atheists would advocate lying, if the alternative has bad
> enough consequences. At any rate, most American atheists have no
> religious beliefs, and so their deception will not violate their
> religious beliefs.
I believe the point is that it would still violate their personal moral
system, regardless of where that system is based. As such, the level of
"reprehsibility" is equal.
Bamboo Tree
> > we're talking about how much oppression a person is subjected to,
> > your comment amounts to a confession that an individual in question
> > is more oppressed in middle-sized-town TX than in large-city New
> > England. It's true (you do agree, right?) and it's lamentable
> > (ditto, since oppression is a bad thing?).
>
> Not at all. A hard-core southern Baptist Christian is liable to feel a
> great deal of oppression in large-city New England. Or San Fransico.
> Or Utah (honestly, probably MORE in Utah).
>
> The amount of oppression a person feels is a function of where they are
> in relation to the majority mores of their locale.
Gotcha. I thought you were talking about *oppression*, but you really were
just talking about something else, a particular feeling. Okay. But the
discussion was about the *oppression* of atheists.
Chris Menzel
> > > I have a hard time dredging up much compassion for the churchgoing
> > > atheist. Still just strikes me as flat dishonest. Whatever happned
> > > to the courage of one's convictions?
> >
> > I would agree with you here. I would no more respect someone who is an
> > athiest who goes to church than I would a Christian who denies their
> > faith when it would be inconvienant.
>
> No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her
> religion that she not be deceptive in this way. I think.
Good god, Michael, is it not just a part of being *human* not to be
deceptive in this way? Flagrant dishonesty about one's convictions in
(most) any context is equally worthy of disapprobation. Religious
beliefs are irrelevant.
> Some xians, anyway: those who accept the teaching that a xian should
> never deny her religious beliefs. Don't many xians hold this? My
> guess is that most atheists would advocate lying, if the alternative
> has bad enough consequences. At any rate, most American atheists have
> no religious beliefs, and so their deception will not violate their
> religious beliefs.
That doesn't mean they suck less for having done it. And anyway, what
we're talking about are ordinary situations in which it is simply
*convenient* to fly under the radar. There are hard cases -- someone
holding a gun to your child's head or the like -- for believers and
nonbelievers alike.
-chris
Bamboo Tree
"Chris Menzel" <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnc03b5v....@philebus.tamu.edu...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:39:15 GMT, Bamboo Tree <micha...@verizon.net>
said:
> > > > I have a hard time dredging up much compassion for the churchgoing
> > > > atheist. Still just strikes me as flat dishonest. Whatever happned
> > > > to the courage of one's convictions?
> > >
> > > I would agree with you here. I would no more respect someone who is
an
> > > athiest who goes to church than I would a Christian who denies their
> > > faith when it would be inconvienant.
> >
> > No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her
> > religion that she not be deceptive in this way. I think.
>
> Good god, Michael, is it not just a part of being *human* not to be
> deceptive in this way? Flagrant dishonesty about one's convictions in
> (most) any context is equally worthy of disapprobation. Religious
> beliefs are irrelevant.
Hmm. (1) Is it part of being *human* not to be deceptive in this way? I
dunno. I think there are extreme circumstances where a normal human would
be deceptive this way without being reprehensible: a gun pointed at their
child, for instance, as you say later. (2) I think it's not as simple as
"flagrant dishonesty about one's convictions in (most) any context is
equally worthy of disapprobation"; flagrant dishonesty about one's
convictions in any context where the consequences of honesty are really
really bad may deserve no disapprobation at all. (3) Certain religious
beliefs, like the view that a xian should never deny her xianity, *are*
relevant in light of the preceding consideration: for such a person, the
idea (I guess) is that the consequences of denying your xianity are so great
(e.g. God's displeasure?) that such dishonesty is *always* objectionable.
Most atheists don't think this about their atheism. So it is *always*
reprehensible for such a xian to deny her xian beliefs, while it is only
*sometimes* reprehensible for the atheist. (4) And moreover, in a case
where it is reprehensible for both, it is *more* reprehensible on the xian's
part, i.e., reprehensible for an additional reason, the religious one?
> > Some xians, anyway: those who accept the teaching that a xian should
> > never deny her religious beliefs. Don't many xians hold this? My
> > guess is that most atheists would advocate lying, if the alternative
> > has bad enough consequences. At any rate, most American atheists have
> > no religious beliefs, and so their deception will not violate their
> > religious beliefs.
>
> That doesn't mean they suck less for having done it. And anyway, what
> we're talking about are ordinary situations in which it is simply
> *convenient* to fly under the radar. There are hard cases -- someone
> holding a gun to your child's head or the like -- for believers and
> nonbelievers alike.
Convenience comes in degrees. But I quibble. Anyway, maybe the atheist
*does* suck less in such cases, since at least she doesn't suck for having
violated a religious rule. Maybe the religiosity of the additional reason
is irrelevant: if you do something that's bad for two reasons, and I do the
same action (so to speak) but it's bad for only one reason, then do you suck
more than me? Or maybe the religiosity *is* relevant: if you and I do the
same action and it's already bad for nonreligious reasons, then if your
action was "against your religion" as they say, and mine wasn't because I
lack religion, then what? I suck less, right? -- M
Deathdog The Assassin
> [snip snip]
This conversation reminds me of two buzzards fighting over which one gets
to eat a decayed rat corpse.
Chris Menzel
>
> "Chris Menzel" <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message
> news:slrnc03b5v....@philebus.tamu.edu...
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:39:15 GMT, Bamboo Tree <micha...@verizon.net>
> said:
> > > > > I have a hard time dredging up much compassion for the churchgoing
> > > > > atheist. Still just strikes me as flat dishonest. Whatever happned
> > > > > to the courage of one's convictions?
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with you here. I would no more respect someone who is
> an
> > > > athiest who goes to church than I would a Christian who denies their
> > > > faith when it would be inconvienant.
> > >
> > > No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her
> > > religion that she not be deceptive in this way. I think.
> >
> > Good god, Michael, is it not just a part of being *human* not to be
> > deceptive in this way? Flagrant dishonesty about one's convictions in
> > (most) any context is equally worthy of disapprobation. Religious
> > beliefs are irrelevant.
>
> Hmm. (1) Is it part of being *human* not to be deceptive in this way?
What I said was garbled. I meant to say we generally think that humans
regardless of religious beliefs to be under an obligation not to be flagrantly
dishonest; prima facie anyway.
-c
Bamboo Tree
*Very* prima facie. Suppose you were an atheist but you really wanted to be
a philosopher, say, and you discovered that all other things being equal,
it's a lot easier to get a job in philosophy if people think you're a xian.
Is this enough to make it unreprehensible to lie?
Suppose it's a lot easier if people think you sleep on your back. Is
this enough? -- M
ddtomkins
> ...
>No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her religion
>that she not be deceptive in this way. I think.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
> Some xians, anyway: those
>who accept the teaching that a xian should never deny her religious beliefs.
>Don't many xians hold this?
If we disown Him, He will also disown us;
If we are faithless, He will remain faithful,
for He cannot disown Himself.
> My guess is that most atheists would advocate
>lying, if the alternative has bad enough consequences. At any rate, most
>American atheists have no religious beliefs, and so their deception will not
>violate their religious beliefs.
>--
>=============================
>Michael Hand
Ciao,
Chris Menzel
said:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:39:15 GMT, "Bamboo Tree"
> <micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >No. A deceiving xian is more reprehensible, since it's part of her religion
> >that she not be deceptive in this way. I think.
>
> Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Sure, uh, er, huh?
> >Some xians, anyway: those who accept the teaching that a xian should never
> >deny her religious beliefs. Don't many xians hold this?
>
> If we disown Him, He will also disown us;
> If we are faithless, He will remain faithful,
> for He cannot disown Himself.
I've always found this passage contradictory. Suppose someone, call him
"Dwight", disowns Christ. Then by the first proposition, Christ will disown
Dwight. But it surely follows from the fact that Dwight disowns Christ that
Dwight is faithless. So by then by the second proposition above, Christ will
remain faithful -- to Dwight, presumably. But if Christ remains faithful, then
surely he cannot disown Dwight. One can't possibly be faithful to X and
simultaneously disown X. What else does "faithful" mean?
One might try to squirm out of this by denying that the proposition that Christ
will remain faithful in this context implies that he will remain faithful *to
Dwight*. But if that's right, then the passage just doesn't make any sense.
The whole point St Paul seems to be making here is that Christ remains faithful
despite our faithlessness -- i.e., he remains faithful TO US even if we are
faithless TO HIM.
So it looks like Paul uttered a contradiction here. By my lights he should
have just clobbered that first proposition.
Hermeneutically yours,
-chris
Bamboo Tree
I struggled with this too, and considered the two construals you give. I
prefer the reading you reject, for the reason you give -- the *obvious* one
yields a contradiction immediately. Now I'll argue for the one you reject.
Line 3 is an explanation of line 2, so line 2 must mean that he will remain
faithful to *himself*. So line 2 is an explanation of line 1. So the whole
thing amounts to -- in reverse order -- he can't be unfaithful to himself,
so even if you *are* unfaithful to him, he won't be, so he must disown you.
An advantage of this reading is that it makes sense of line 3. The big
remaining question is, why must he *disown* you just because you're
unfaithful and he (by necessity) isn't?
Of course, if you're right about the context of the passage (and I'll
assume you are), then this reading makes the whole thing inconsistent with
what the author is up to. But at least it's *internally* coherent.
Stanley Wood
Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>So it looks like Paul uttered a contradiction here. By my lights he should
>have just clobbered that first proposition.
I think it makes more sense if you consider it with a bit more context:
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2TIM+2:11-13
11Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him,
we will also live with him;
12if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
13if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.
First, Paul is quoting a "trustworthy" saying, so the phrasing may not be
typical Paul since it may not have originated with him.
Second, it appears that the saying sets up two alternatives: either
we die with Him, or we disown Him. If we die with Him then we are not
faithless and therefore he will not disown us. Even if we do disown
him and are faithless, he remains faithful. He remains faithful to his
promises.
That's my reading of it. YMMV.
Stanley
Bamboo Tree
news:buesc2$mqa$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> 11Here is a trustworthy saying:
> If we died with him,
> we will also live with him;
> 12if we endure,
> we will also reign with him.
> If we disown him,
> he will also disown us;
> 13if we are faithless,
> he will remain faithful,
> for he cannot disown himself.
>
> First, Paul is quoting a "trustworthy" saying, so the phrasing may not be
> typical Paul since it may not have originated with him.
>
> Second, it appears that the saying sets up two alternatives: either
> we die with Him, or we disown Him. If we die with Him then we are not
> faithless and therefore he will not disown us. Even if we do disown
> him and are faithless, he remains faithful. He remains faithful to his
> promises.
All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
Anyway, the problem is the interpretation of "faithful" in line 9.
Lines 6-7 suggest a tit-for-tat god: if we do this to him, he'll do it right
back at us. But lines 8-9 appear to give up this reciprocity: even if we're
faithless, he won't be. Now, Chris's reading takes the rhetoric of 6-7 and
therefore expects 8-9 to be a comment, again, on how god and I are doing
toward each other. Thus the contradiction Chris noted, and he's right. The
reading I preferred gives up this coherent rhetorical device, making the
author somewhat less of a stylist than Chris's does, in order just to *make
sense* of the passage, i.e., to find some way to avoid attributing a pretty
blatant inconsistency. It's hard to see how the new lines you reproduce
have any bearing on the question of what's up in the original passage, so I
think you're wrong that the original passage makes more sense when the
preceding lines are added. They just don't help settle the issue of how to
read lines 6-9.
Your own proposal to understand "faithful" in line 9 as "faithful to his
promises" is very bad. There is clearly an intended contrast between
"faithless" in line 8 and "faithful" in line 9, so a coherent reading had
better make these out to be related in a pretty close way; for instance,
read "faithless" as meaning giving up on belief that Jesus is divine, our
savior, blah blah blah, and "faithful" in line 9 means *not* giving up on
those convictions. This also makes good sense of the final line -- it
*explains* why Jesus remains faithful -- he can't do otherwise. But you
propose reading "faithful" as "faithful to his promises", which simply means
he's unwilling to break a promise. Now, if that promise is that we'll
suffer the eternal torments of hell if we don't take him at his word, then
(i) for the purposes of interpreting the passage, you're just *making up*
an interpretation of line 9's "faithful", and surely that ain't playin' by
the rules, and
(ii) would Jesus really think that keeping his promise is more important
that saving us from hell? I mean, Ed Harris's character in *The Rock*
promises to bomb San Francisco if he doesn't get what he wants, but goes
back on the promise because, well, he just isn't the kind of guy who's gonna
bomb a city to get what he wanted in the film. Your interpretation puts
Harris's character in the film one up on Jesus. Did you mean to do *that*?
Stanley Wood
Bamboo Tree <mh...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
In this case *die* is not a metaphor. It is the actual death of our sin
nature on the cross with Christ. Although that's not really material to the
meaning of faithful and faithless.
> Anyway, the problem is the interpretation of "faithful" in line 9.
>Lines 6-7 suggest a tit-for-tat god: if we do this to him, he'll do it right
>back at us. But lines 8-9 appear to give up this reciprocity: even if we're
>faithless, he won't be.
The fact that the reciprocity doesn't carry through to his faithfulness is
the point of the saying. He is faithful, even if we are not.
If by "tit-for-tat" you mean "just and fair" then I think you're headed
in the right direction. The terms of the tit-for-tat are spelled out
pretty clearly in the first half of Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin
is death." If you sin against God then the consequence is death.
The second half of Romans 6:23 describes the alternative "but the gift
of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This is the same
alternative described in lines 2-3 of this passage, "If we died with
him, we will also live with him;" Christ has died to pay for our sins,
but we must place our trust in him to accept the gift.
>(i) for the purposes of interpreting the passage, you're just *making up*
>an interpretation of line 9's "faithful", and surely that ain't playin' by
>the rules, and
It seems pretty clear to me that both faithless and faithful refer to
faith in God. When he uses the word faithless it means that we
don't believe God will keep his promises. Maybe we don't even believe
he's God and therefore can't keep them, or maybe we believe he's
spiteful and just won't. Yet even if we are faithless, he will remain
faithful. He is God and he can and will keep his promises.
>(ii) would Jesus really think that keeping his promise is more important
>that saving us from hell? I mean, Ed Harris's character in *The Rock*
>promises to bomb San Francisco if he doesn't get what he wants, but goes
>back on the promise because, well, he just isn't the kind of guy who's gonna
>bomb a city to get what he wanted in the film. Your interpretation puts
>Harris's character in the film one up on Jesus. Did you mean to do *that*?
If you study the Bible I think it becomes pretty clear that God places an
extremely high value on his promises to us. He doesn't go back on his
word.
Bad movie scripts aside, there are a number of differences that make
this sort of like comparing apples and stove bolts. I'd start by
considering that Ed Harris didn't exactly have the moral high ground in
the movie. He didn't ask the citizens of San Francisco to do something
because it was right, he asked them to act out of his own greed. He
didn't send his son as a sacrifice to die in their place, and he didn't
create San Francisco and the people therein.
Stanley
Trish
observer amd undoubtedly you will correct me if I am wrong, but...
...But you propose reading "faithful" as "faithful to his promises",
which simply means he's unwilling to break a promise. Now, if that
promise is that we'll suffer the eternal torments of hell if we don't
take him at his word, then...
...(ii) would Jesus really think that keeping his promise is more
important
that saving us from hell? I mean, Ed Harris's character in *The Rock*
promises to bomb San Francisco if he doesn't get what he wants, but
goes
back on the promise because, well, he just isn't the kind of guy who's
gonna
bomb a city to get what he wanted in the film...
I believe the importance (to christians) of not taking Jesus at his
word is more fundamental than his sense of betrayal or hurt. In fact
three crucial elements (axioms) of their faith are that the bible is
the word of God, Jesus Christ is God and that salvation (i.e. not
going to hell, etc) is received by faith (!!!) in Christ as lord and
as resurrected from the dead.
Thus if one can doubt that he is faithful to his promises after he has
stated that he is (the bible) and still be saved (not burning), then
one doubts his integral honesty (he was either mistaken or dishonest,
both necessarily contradicting the 'perfect nature' of God) and
ultimately doubts his perfection ( again his by nature of being God).
This leads us to either accept that Jesus (= God) is not perfect (thus
not God???), the bible is erroneous (this is loaded, but the argument
still holds without any loss of validity that he must be faithful to
his promises regardless) or that one can be saved without faith (with
some doubt) in his perfection or his Godliness. These contradict our
original axioms
Thus in order to be saved ( snatched from the warm coals of satan's
condo) one must believe in his word...(must take him at his word!!!).
Not taking him at his word contradicts at least one fundamental
requirement of salvation in the christian world. Sorry, I am a
mathematician and attempted to present the argument by assuming the
opposite case and leading to a contradiction of an axiom...This is
probably unsophisticated for a philosopher, but I think effective.
Have at it...Trish.
sw...@panix.com (Stanley Wood) wrote in message news:<buesc2$mqa$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
Bamboo Tree
> In article <R1FOb.19118$ko5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> Bamboo Tree <mh...@tamu.edu> wrote:
> >All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
>
> In this case *die* is not a metaphor. It is the actual death of our sin
> nature on the cross with Christ. Although that's not really material to
the
> meaning of faithful and faithless.
Oh, "the actual death of our sin nature on the cross" isn't a metaphor? The
death of my so-and-so nature? On the cross? Well, anyway...
> > Anyway, the problem is the interpretation of "faithful" in line 9.
> >Lines 6-7 suggest a tit-for-tat god: if we do this to him, he'll do it
right
> >back at us. But lines 8-9 appear to give up this reciprocity: even if
we're
> >faithless, he won't be.
>
> The fact that the reciprocity doesn't carry through to his faithfulness is
> the point of the saying. He is faithful, even if we are not.
Yes, that's my preferred reading, as opposed to its competitor.
> If by "tit-for-tat" you mean "just and fair" then I think you're headed
> in the right direction.
I wish I could tell if you're joking.
> The terms of the tit-for-tat are spelled out
> pretty clearly in the first half of Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin
> is death." If you sin against God then the consequence is death.
Oh, *that's* fair and just: you do something I don't wantcha to do, and I'll
kill you for it?
> >(i) for the purposes of interpreting the passage, you're just *making
up*
> >an interpretation of line 9's "faithful", and surely that ain't playin'
by
> >the rules, and
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that both faithless and faithful refer to
> faith in God.
"Clear" is a bit strong, given the existence of the competing reading, but
yes, that's the reading I endorsed earlier.
> When he uses the word faithless it means that we
> don't believe God will keep his promises.
Well, no. To lack faith is pretty unspecific, as I suggested with the "blah
blah blah" (equivalent to "etc."). It can include denying the existence of
god(s), or suspending judgment on the question. There might be other ways
to lack faith, too: thinking there's a god but being unwilling to worship
her -- e.g. being unwilling to worship Seth because he killed his brother
Osiris -- or even some other things. Thinking that the god you posit won't
keep her promises is a *way* of lacking faith. It's hardly what it *means*.
Unless you think it means *just* that, for purposes of interpreting the
passage, in which case you are, as I suggested, just making it up as you go
along.
> Maybe we don't even believe
> he's God and therefore can't keep them, or maybe we believe he's
> spiteful and just won't. Yet even if we are faithless, he will remain
> faithful. He is God and he can and will keep his promises.
Yes. I understand your reading of the passage, I just think it's
irresponsible interpretation, absent a more compelling context or argument
than you provide.
> >(ii) would Jesus really think that keeping his promise is more important
> >that saving us from hell? I mean, Ed Harris's character in *The Rock*
> >promises to bomb San Francisco if he doesn't get what he wants, but goes
> >back on the promise because, well, he just isn't the kind of guy who's
gonna
> >bomb a city to get what he wanted in the film. Your interpretation puts
> >Harris's character in the film one up on Jesus. Did you mean to do
*that*?
>
> If you study the Bible I think it becomes pretty clear that God places an
> extremely high value on his promises to us. He doesn't go back on his
> word.
Under certain circumstance it's wrong to place too high a value on one's
promises. If I promise to kill you if you do something that really doesn't
deserve such a response, then it's *wrong* for me to keep my promise. Maybe
it was wrong to promise it in the first place, but nonetheless it'd be wrong
to keep it.
> Bad movie scripts aside, there are a number of differences that make
> this sort of like comparing apples and stove bolts. I'd start by
> considering that Ed Harris didn't exactly have the moral high ground in
> the movie. He didn't ask the citizens of San Francisco to do something
> because it was right, he asked them to act out of his own greed. He
> didn't send his son as a sacrifice to die in their place, and he didn't
> create San Francisco and the people therein.
If even a jerk like Ed Harris's character does the right thing in the end,
then how in the world can you excuse God?
Bamboo Tree
> requirement of salvation in the christian world. Sorry, I am a
> mathematician and attempted to present the argument by assuming the
> opposite case and leading to a contradiction of an axiom...This is
> probably unsophisticated for a philosopher, but I think effective.
> Have at it...Trish.
I don't want to "have at it". You're making an honest attempt to figure
something out, just as Chris and I were honestly trying to say what we
thought was wrong with the Biblical passage. (This doesn't mean, of course,
that we all can't have a little fun in the process! Note also that we're
now talking about the "big remaining question" that arises if the second of
Chris's options, the one he rejected, is accepted. So we're no longer
talking squarely about the interpretation of the passage.) Stanley, on the
other hand, may have been *superficially* honest in the same way -- though
I'm inclined to think otherwise, being put off by his smarmy
authoritativeness, but his postings appear to suffer from the occasional
tendency of the devout to enshroud one Biblical enigma in further Biblical
mysteries and to think they've thereby made plain the intended
interpretation of it. This is a profound dishonesty. Because it is a
dishonesty undetected by its practitioners, there is a feel of
psychopathology to it.
And no, not unsophisticated, I think.
Now, about your "musings". The things you say about what (at least
some) xians believe is what I thought they believe. So if you're right,
then there is something nutty about (this variety of) xianity: our
punishment will hardly fit our crime! For instance, we sin a little bit,
and so we suffer eternal torment unless we believe the fundamental doctrines
of the religion? (And anyway, is belief a *choice*? Seems to me I can't
*choose* to believe that chihuahuas are smaller than greyhounds, I just
*do*; why is religious belief any different?) C'mon!
Chris Menzel
> I believe the importance (to christians) of not taking Jesus at his
> word is more fundamental than his sense of betrayal or hurt.
Talking generally about "Christians" is pretty much like talking generally
about "Muslims", or "women", or "democrats" (anti-American hate-mongers like
Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity notwithstanding). I suspect the variety you
have in mind are those of a fundamentalist sort. While those folks constitute
perhaps the loudest and most visible type of Christian these days, they are
actually a minority.
-chris
Stanley Wood
Bamboo Tree <mh...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>Oh, *that's* fair and just: you do something I don't wantcha to do, and I'll
>kill you for it?
Perhaps the fundamental difference between your world view and mine is that
I believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs and you do not?
If you look at things with that perspective he is not asking people not to
"do something I don't wantcha to do," rather he is asking people to "do what
is right."
>Well, no. To lack faith is pretty unspecific, as I suggested with the "blah
There's no doubt that the word faithless plucked out of context and
viewed by itself can mean many things. When viewed in context of the new
testament the number of possible meanings shrinks dramatically, and with
those possible meanings the perceived contradiction.
>If even a jerk like Ed Harris's character does the right thing in the end,
>then how in the world can you excuse God?
You would only have to excuse God if you believe he's not doing the
right thing. Smarmy authoritativeness aside (I consider that high praise
coming from a philosophy professor,) I believe he's doing the right
thing because he is doing what is right. What's more, he defines what is
right.
Stanley
Bamboo Tree
> Perhaps the fundamental difference between your world view and mine is
that
> I believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs and you do not?
Well, I won't *assert* that there are absolute rights and wrongs, but I
won't assert otherwise. Still working on it.
> If you look at things with that perspective he is not asking people not to
> "do something I don't wantcha to do," rather he is asking people to "do
what
> is right."
So it's "Do what's right or I'll kill you for it"?
> You would only have to excuse God if you believe he's not doing the
> right thing.
The right thing is, "Do what's right or I'll kill you for it"?
> Smarmy authoritativeness aside (I consider that high praise
> coming from a philosophy professor,)
Why?
> I believe he's doing the right
> thing because he is doing what is right. What's more, he defines what is
> right.
Oh, so now it's "Do what I define as right, or I'll kill you for it"?
George R. Welch
Didn't Plato disestablish this idea about a million
years ago? Didn't we go through it ad nauseum on t.g. about
10 years ago?
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting
the ground with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a
dead horse lay.
:x
Dalene Barnes
Probably, but many of us didn't actually get to see the horse alive, watch
it die, or beat it while the body was still there, so we have to rely on
those of you who were to tell us where the spot was and let us use your
experienced clubs!
Dalene
Chris Barnes
> the ground with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a
> dead horse lay.
This is signature quote material!
Chris Barnes
> Talking generally about "Christians" is pretty much like talking
> generally about "Muslims", or "women", or "democrats" (anti-American
> hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity notwithstanding).
Let's not leave Alan Colmes out of this list...
> I suspect the variety you have in mind are those of a fundamentalist
> sort. While those folks constitute perhaps the loudest and most
> visible type of Christian these days, they are actually a minority.
Matt 7:13-14
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life,
and there are few who find it.
;-)
Also, If I'm in a minority, do I get to beg for quotas to make sure that
at least a minimum perctage of us are admitted to the university?
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
- George Welch, TAMU Physics professor
George R. Welch
Chris Barnes <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote:
>George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote:
>
>> Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting
>> the ground with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a
>> dead horse lay.
>
>This is signature quote material!
Don't quote *me* on it, though -- I stole it.
Let's see, I didn't save it when I saw it, but lets see what
we can find ... (google-de-google-de-google-de). Voila!
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Xns93A6C3D5F1434NukeMarineBLANKcoxne%4068.6.19.6
--George
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
Chris Menzel
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> > Talking generally about "Christians" is pretty much like talking
> > generally about "Muslims", or "women", or "democrats" (anti-American
> > hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity notwithstanding).
>
> Let's not leave Alan Colmes out of this list...
Sure thing, if like RL and SH he's a slandering anti-American hate-monger.
That reminds me, I forgot Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter. Who's Alan Colmes?
> > I suspect the variety you have in mind are those of a fundamentalist
> > sort. While those folks constitute perhaps the loudest and most
> > visible type of Christian these days, they are actually a minority.
>
> Matt 7:13-14
> Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that
> leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is
> the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who
> find it.
>
> ;-)
Whew, thank God I won't have to worry about bumping elbows with too many of
them up there! :-) (Actually, I think this passage is more about "down here"
than "up there"...)
> Also, If I'm in a minority, do I get to beg for quotas to make sure that
> at least a minimum perctage of us are admitted to the university?
Sorry, dude, not enough oppression in yer history!
-chris
Chris Menzel
> In article <R1FOb.19118$ko5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> Bamboo Tree <mh...@tamu.edu> wrote:
> >All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
>
> In this case *die* is not a metaphor. It is the actual death of our sin
Sorry, dude, face it: it's a metaphor. Death, in its *non*-metaphorical sense,
is a biological phenomenon, something that happens to living things. Your
sinful nature, robust as it might be, ain't a living thing; it's a metaphysical
thing, and hence it can't *literally* die. So the meaning of "death" is being
stretched metaphorically. Just accept it. There. That wasn't so bad, was it?
But look, you being a fundy and all, the idea of anything less than literal,
absolute, black 'n' white sorts of truth is probably tough on your brain, but
listen carefully: metaphor is a good thing. In fact, metaphor is absolutely
*critical* to theology, even the inflexible and ossified variety you subscribe
to. Metaphors are extremely powerful and effective ways of expressing truths
that might be difficult, indeed *impossible*, to characterize effectively in
more literal terms. The proposition in question is a case and point. I mean,
who, other than a Pat Robertson style nut-case, is arrogant enough to say she
know *exactly* what sort of metaphysical juju goes down when someone accepts
Christ? The *important* thing, for the Christian, is that, *whatever* it is
that happens, it makes one capable of things one wasn't capable of before, and
makes reconciliation with God possible. Saying that your sinful nature "died"
is a powerful metaphor to express that you, and who knows what else, have
changed in ways that makes this reconciliation possible.
Say it again now -- metaphor good!
-chris
Stanley Wood
>That reminds me, I forgot Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter. Who's Alan Colmes?
Alan's the token liberal on the Fox News channel. He co-stars with Sean
Hannity on Hannity & Colmes.
Stanley
Stanley Wood
George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote:
Ahh, the golden age of tamu.general.
Stanley
Stanley Wood
Thats a pretty good (if terse) summary of the old testament. To make it
complete you would need to add something like, "I sent my Son to die as
a sacrifice in your place. If you place your faith in him you will not
perish, but will have everlasting life."
>Oh, so now it's "Do what I define as right, or I'll kill you for it"?
When you're the creator, you get to make the rules.
Stanley
Bamboo Tree
> >Oh, so now it's "Do what I define as right, or I'll kill you for it"?
>
> When you're the creator, you get to make the rules.
*sigh*
Dalene Barnes
>>> Oh, so now it's "Do what I define as right, or I'll kill you for
>>> it"?
>>
>> When you're the creator, you get to make the rules.
>
> *sigh*
Why the sigh? It goes that way for a lot of stuff....the guy who made up
Monopoly decided that when you pass go, you get $200, and that Boardwalk,
while just around the corner from Baltic, is worth tons more. He made the
rules, we play by them. The guys in admissions decide what your GPA has to
be; they make the rules, you play by them if you play.
OR not.
The difference is this - when playing Monopoly and making up your own rules,
one doesn't usually take a final reckoning with the makers of Monopoly into
account. I broke the rules and gave people only $50 when they passed go.
Big fat hairy deal, so what, who knows, who cares.
My GPA dropped to 0.04; there will be a reckoning. You will not be allowed
to continue playing. Someone knows, someone cares. The makers have defined
what is right, and now they will expel you for not following their rules.
So the question then becomes - in life, will there be a final reckoning,
whereby you must account for the way you played the game and followed the
rules? Obviously, some chose to believe there will be, others choose to
believe not.
Dalene
Chris Menzel
> Bamboo Tree <micha...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Oh, so now it's "Do what I define as right, or I'll kill you for
> >>> it"?
> >>
> >> When you're the creator, you get to make the rules.
> >
> > *sigh*
>
> Why the sigh? It goes that way for a lot of stuff....the guy who made up
> Monopoly decided that when you pass go, you get $200, and that Boardwalk,
> while just around the corner from Baltic, is worth tons more. He made the
> rules, we play by them.
The problem with this, Darlene, is that morality gets pretty dicey if you say
that God simply *defined* by fiat what is right and what isn't. On that view,
if God had decided to define, say, torturing others for personal pleasure as
right, then it would have been. Intuitively, that just ain't right! :-)
Torturing others for personal pleasure is just wrong, absolutely, and if God
had declared differently he wouldn't have been God, but rather the Devil. To
paraphrase Plato, things that are right are not right because God said so;
rather, God said so *because* they are right. Granted, this means that God was
in some sense beholden to something "outside" of himself, and some
fundamentalist types don't like the idea of God being beholden to *anything*
but himself, but that seems to me far preferable to the alternative, which is
that God just capriciously and without any reason *chose* certain things to be
right/good and others not. (And after all, God is beholden to all sorts of
other stuff "outside" himself, e.g., the laws of logic, the truths of
arithmetic, etc. Not even God could have made it the case that 2+3=17.)
-chris
Chris Menzel
> >Sure thing, if like RL and SH he's a slandering anti-American hate-monger.
> >That reminds me, I forgot Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter. Who's Alan Colmes?
>
> Alan's the token liberal on the Fox News channel. He co-stars with Sean
> Hannity on Hannity & Colmes.
"Token" is right. He's a joke. Sheesh, if you want someone approaching the
same level of vituperation on the left (albeit with massively more clever
humor), at least go with Al Franken. Though the "anti-American" charge is just
a *bit* harder to justify in Franken's case -- I notice none of RL, SH, LI, AC
and similar anti-American bottom-feeders has gone on three USO tours and been
shot at by Iraqi insurgents.
-chris
Chris Barnes
> Who's Alan Colmes?
I'm surprised you would ask this, since you seemed to know who Shawn
Hannity is.
Hannity & Combs - "news" show on FoxNews every evening.
> Sorry, dude, not enough oppression in yer history!
I guess we'll just forget about the Roman colesiums, Stalin's purges,
etc.
Chris Barnes
> Don't quote *me* on it, though -- I stole it.
> Let's see, I didn't save it when I saw it, but lets see what
> we can find ... (google-de-google-de-google-de). Voila!
Yeah, but you said it better.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
Chris Menzel
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> > Who's Alan Colmes?
>
> I'm surprised you would ask this, since you seemed to know who Shawn
> Hannity is.
From his distorted, slanderous, un-American ravings on the radio.
> > Sorry, dude, not enough oppression in yer history!
>
> I guess we'll just forget about the Roman colesiums, Stalin's purges,
> etc.
This is not part of your history *in America*.
-c
Deathdog The Assassin
> Not even God could have made it the case that 2+3=17.)
Why not? Maybe he just decided to make it equal 5. I've never heard a good
argument regarding why mathematical and logical "truths" are beyond the
scope of God to mess with.
Stanley Wood
>is a biological phenomenon, something that happens to living things. Your
>sinful nature, robust as it might be, ain't a living thing; it's a metaphysical
>thing, and hence it can't *literally* die. So the meaning of "death" is being
>stretched metaphorically. Just accept it. There. That wasn't so bad, was it?
That assumes that the only meaning for the word death is biological. Grab
a copy of any good dictionary and I think you'll find a wide variety of
definitions for the word death that have absolutely nothing to do with
biology. I was using the word death in a spiritual sense. It isn't a
biological death, but that doesn't necessarily make it a metaphor either.
>Say it again now -- metaphor good!
It seems like only yesterday that Michael was telling us that:
> All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
All this confusion is really tough for my fundy brain . . .
Stanley
George R. Welch
Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:53:16 -0600, Dalene Barnes
> <dal...@txbarnes.com> said:
> The problem with this, Darlene, is ...
She shouldn't have to correct your spelling. Chris,
pay more attention!
:wq
George R. Welch
I'm not nearly as expert as Chris, but here's how I
see it: He can't do that, because if he could do that, then
He could also make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.
And He can't do that because if He did, then there would
be something He couldn't do. And if there was something He
couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
Deathdog The Assassin
>
> I'm not nearly as expert as Chris, but here's how I
> see it: He can't do that, because if he could do that, then
> He could also make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.
> And He can't do that because if He did, then there would
> be something He couldn't do. And if there was something He
> couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
Isn't this just the same premise restated using rocks instead of addition?
The question remains why God must be limited by a human concept like
logic. What makes you so sure logic and math even exist outside our minds?
I don't like limiting God like that; I'll leave that to the people who
actually think they know something about how the universe works.
Chris Menzel
<deat...@hagbard.io.com> said:
> In a contingent reality, Chris Menzel possibly said:
>
> > Not even God could have made it the case that 2+3=17.)
>
> Why not? Maybe he just decided to make it equal 5.
The suggestion isn't even coherent. YOu know what it is to have two things,
right? And three other things, correct? Describe a situation in which those
two things and those three other things jointly constitute seventeen things.
> I've never heard a good argument regarding why mathematical and logical
> "truths" are beyond the scope of God to mess with.
Then you can't have looked too far. Or you've seen good arguments but haven't
recognized them as such. But one thing is sure: you've never heard a good
argument that God *can* alter logical and mathematical truths.
-cm
Dalene Barnes
Thanks! I was so busy yesterday, I forgot to go on my usual rant about the
extra R.
Dalene
Chris Menzel
My apologies to Dalene for fumbling fingers...
Chris Menzel
<deat...@hagbard.io.com> said:
> In a contingent reality, George R. Welch possibly said:
> >
> > I'm not nearly as expert as Chris, but here's how I see it: He can't
> > do that, because if he could do that, then He could also make a rock
> > that is too heavy for Him to lift. And He can't do that because if He
> > did, then there would be something He couldn't do. And if there was
> > something He couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
>
> logic.
The question remains what reason you have for thinking logic is "a human
concept".
> What makes you so sure logic and math even exist outside our minds?
The incoherence of any suggestion to the contrary.
> I don't like limiting God like that;
Fine, but your personal preferences aren't really the point at issue. The
problem is that you can't even coherently describe your position. Is it that
God could make contradictions true? That God could have made it the case that,
say, you both exist and fail to exist at the same time? Once you head down
that road, then you can say *anything* about God: that he could have been good
and evil at the same time; that he could have caused *himself* to exist and not
to exist at the same time. Fact is, traditional theology has always
acknowledged all sorts of divine limitations, things God is not capable of
doing -- God is not capable of sinning, for example, or breaking his promises,
or causing himself not to exist. Those are *interesting* limitations, one's
that tell us what sort of being God is. And what makes them interesting is the
fact that those are actions that are genuinely *possible* for some beings, but
not for God. Not being able to make impossible things true is a yawner by
comparison. And it's easy to see why theologians acknowledge these limitations
-- if you think God is capable of breaking his promises, say, what makes you
think won't break them in fact? That the whole Jesus thing is just a big joke
on planet Earth?
> I'll leave that to the people who actually think they know something about
> how the universe works.
You mean to think that it is not possible to know something about how the
universe works? Sad.
-chris
Chris Menzel
> >Sorry, dude, face it: it's a metaphor. Death, in its *non*-metaphorical
> >sense, is a biological phenomenon, something that happens to living things.
> >Your sinful nature, robust as it might be, ain't a living thing; it's a
> >metaphysical thing, and hence it can't *literally* die. So the meaning of
> >"death" is being stretched metaphorically. Just accept it. There. That
> >wasn't so bad, was it?
>
> That assumes that the only meaning for the word death is biological. Grab a
> copy of any good dictionary and I think you'll find a wide variety of
> definitions for the word death that have absolutely nothing to do with
> biology. I was using the word death in a spiritual sense. It isn't a
> biological death, but that doesn't necessarily make it a metaphor either.
Well, of course, consulting a dictionary hardly settles the issue. Language is
extraordinarily flexible, and the more we talk, the more we stretch meanings to
fit new situations (that's basically what metaphor is). Thus, metaphor is
itself a kind of meaning, and so when a given metaphor become used widely
enough a dictionary will record the fact. The meaning of "death" is surely
first and foremost biological, and has been extended metaphorically to all
sorts of phenomena.
> >Say it again now -- metaphor good!
>
> It seems like only yesterday that Michael was telling us that:
> >
> > All these metaphors can get in the way: if we *die* with him? C'mon.
As my buddy Michael will not hesitate to tell you, he and I are on opposite
sides of many issues. Not least, theology. (He's really rather badly wrong
about many things!)
> All this confusion is really tough for my fundy brain . . .
It's striving mightily to break those fundy bonds and learn something new! :-D
-chris
Deathdog The Assassin
> The suggestion isn't even coherent. YOu know what it is to have two things,
> right? And three other things, correct? Describe a situation in which those
> two things and those three other things jointly constitute seventeen things.
What does my inability to contemplate a situation where 2+3=17 have to do
with God being limited in the same manner? You're right, the suggestion
ISN'T coherent to US. I'm not about to say God can't make situations that
would seem illogical or impossible humans. Maybe Jesus was breaking the
laws of mathematics when he cut a fish in half and wound up with seventeen
fish. Who knows...I'm not about to put any limits on God simply because
*I* have limitations.
> Then you can't have looked too far. Or you've seen good arguments but haven't
> recognized them as such. But one thing is sure: you've never heard a good
> argument that God *can* alter logical and mathematical truths.
The argument is simple: God is beyond human reasoning. Logical and
mathematical truths might seem fundamental to the universe for you, but I
see no reason why God must follow them as well, unless you say God is
bounded by the universe, which isn't quite how I envision God existing
(i.e. he isn't bound by anything).
I don't see why philosophers can't just leave God out of it when they talk
about logic and math and whatever else they're interested in.
Deathdog The Assassin
> The question remains what reason you have for thinking logic is "a human
> concept".
What reason do you have for thinking it's not?
> The incoherence of any suggestion to the contrary.
So you're saying that since you can't envision logic being mutable, it is
immutable? I get it...it's illogical that logic can be illogical,
therefore it must be logical. That's just defining logic in terms that
already assume it holds.
> Fine, but your personal preferences aren't really the point at issue. The
> problem is that you can't even coherently describe your position. Is it that
> God could make contradictions true?
*I* can't make contradictions true, but God might be able to. That's all I
ever said on the matter.
> That God could have made it the case that,
> say, you both exist and fail to exist at the same time? Once you head down
> that road, then you can say *anything* about God: that he could have been good
> and evil at the same time; that he could have caused *himself* to exist and not
> to exist at the same time.
All statements made in English that assume the human concept of
non-contradiction applies to God.
> Fact is, traditional theology has always
> acknowledged all sorts of divine limitations, things God is not capable of
> doing -- God is not capable of sinning, for example, or breaking his promises,
> or causing himself not to exist. Those are *interesting* limitations, one's
> that tell us what sort of being God is. And what makes them interesting is the
> fact that those are actions that are genuinely *possible* for some beings, but
> not for God. Not being able to make impossible things true is a yawner by
> comparison. And it's easy to see why theologians acknowledge these limitations
> -- if you think God is capable of breaking his promises, say, what makes you
> think won't break them in fact? That the whole Jesus thing is just a big joke
> on planet Earth?
Being capable of something doesn't mean following through with a course of
action. God wouldn't violate the laws of the universe, but that doesn't
mean he couldn't if he wanted to. God doesn't sin because he doesn't want
to. If he felt like wiping us all out for fun, are you going to tell me he
couldn't be able to do it, or wouldn't be able to do it...there is a
difference.
> You mean to think that it is not possible to know something about how the
> universe works? Sad.
Why is it sad? I can know all sorts of stuff, but the true nature of
reality is outside the realm of human understanding. This obsession with
logic and mathematical truths proves that.
Chris Barnes
>> I'm surprised you would ask this, since you seemed to know who
>> Shawn Hannity is.
>
> From his distorted, slanderous, un-American ravings on the radio.
Which country station is that?
>>> Sorry, dude, not enough oppression in yer history!
>>
>> I guess we'll just forget about the Roman colesiums, Stalin's
>> purges, etc.
>
> This is not part of your history *in America*.
I don't think anyone used the *in America* qualifier before. What makes
oppression in other countries or in other time periods history any less
significant?
Chris Barnes
> My apologies to Dalene for fumbling fingers...
I prefer to blame her mother...
;-)
Chris Barnes
> see it: He can't do that, because if he could do that, then
> He could also make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.
> And He can't do that because if He did, then there would
> be something He couldn't do. And if there was something He
> couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
Me Chris, or Chris M?
At any rate, this entire line of argument relies on the assumption that
the statement "there is nothing God can't do" is a truth.
It's not.
God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it.
God cannot sin.
...ad infinitum
George R. Welch
In article <busc9e$5dj$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Chris Barnes <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote:
>George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not nearly as expert as Chris,
>
:-).
>> but here's how I
>> see it: He can't do that, because if he could do that, then
>> He could also make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.
>> And He can't do that because if He did, then there would
>> be something He couldn't do. And if there was something He
>> couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
>
>At any rate, this entire line of argument relies on the assumption that
>the statement "there is nothing God can't do" is a truth.
>
>It's not.
>
>God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it.
>God cannot sin.
>...ad infinitum
That was my point. But Deathdog wanted to assume it
was true. I was just trying to point out it's not.
Why can't God make a rock so big he can't lift it?
The answer is because that doesn't make any sense. But if,
like Deathdog, you want to assume He can, then you immediately
arrive at the condition that there is something He can't do
(lift it). So, God cannot make 2 + 3 = 17.
> Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
> with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
> - George Welch, TAMU Physics professor
Chris, please, Don't Do This. Really. I explained that
I didn't make it up. If you insist on it, then credit it as
George R. Welch, paraphrasing a previous USENET post.
George R. Welch
>>
>> I'm not nearly as expert as Chris, but here's how I
>> see it: He can't do that, because if he could do that, then
>> He could also make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.
>> And He can't do that because if He did, then there would
>> be something He couldn't do. And if there was something He
>> couldn't do, then He couldn't do that.
>
>Isn't this just the same premise restated using rocks instead of addition?
No. It was just the opposite premise restated using
rocks instead of addition.
Chris Menzel
> Chris Menzel <cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >> I'm surprised you would ask this, since you seemed to know who
> >> Shawn Hannity is.
> >
> > From his distorted, slanderous, un-American ravings on the radio.
>
> Which country station is that?
??
> >>> Sorry, dude, not enough oppression in yer history!
> >>
> >> I guess we'll just forget about the Roman colesiums, Stalin's
> >> purges, etc.
> >
> > This is not part of your history *in America*.
>
> I don't think anyone used the *in America* qualifier before. What makes
> oppression in other countries or in other time periods history any less
> significant?
The fact that they have no bearing on current social structures, privileges,
prejudices.
-chris
Chris Menzel
<deat...@fnord.io.com> said:
> In a contingent reality, Chris Menzel possibly said:
>
> > The suggestion isn't even coherent. YOu know what it is to have two things,
> > right? And three other things, correct? Describe a situation in which those
> > two things and those three other things jointly constitute seventeen things.
>
> What does my inability to contemplate a situation where 2+3=17 have to do
> with God being limited in the same manner? You're right, the suggestion
> ISN'T coherent to US. I'm not about to say God can't make situations that
> would seem illogical or impossible humans.
It's hard to understand why. We're not talking about things that are just
*hard* to understand, or beyond our capability of understanding -- facts about
the physics of the universe that are just conceptually beyond what any human
mind can grasp, for example -- but propositions just involving the meanings of
words. It's just a fact about the meanings of "2", "3", and "+", i.e., facts
about the numbers two and three and the relation of addition, that the sum of
two and three cannot be seventeen. If you think it can, then that just
indicates you don't really understand the meanings of the words. If you think
you can both exist and not exist, then you don't understand the meanings of the
words "not" and "and". Granted, that's a limitation, but not one that most
people share with you. (And actually, I *don't* really think you are limited
in this way, I just think your dogma is getting in the way of a simple truth
about meaning.)
> Maybe Jesus was breaking the laws of mathematics when he cut a fish in half
> and wound up with seventeen fish. Who knows...
Well, the biblical author seems to have been pretty clear on the matter --
Jesus "multiplied" the loaves and fishes, i.e., caused there to be more stuff
than there had been. He didn't break the laws of arithmetic.
> I'm not about to put any limits on God simply because *I* have limitations.
That words have meanings that yield logical truths does not put any nontrivial
limitations on God.
> > Then you can't have looked too far. Or you've seen good arguments but
> > haven't recognized them as such. But one thing is sure: you've never heard
> > a good argument that God *can* alter logical and mathematical truths.
>
> The argument is simple: God is beyond human reasoning. Logical and
> mathematical truths might seem fundamental to the universe for you, but I
> see no reason why God must follow them as well, unless you say God is
> bounded by the universe, which isn't quite how I envision God existing (i.e.
> he isn't bound by anything).
Well, like I said, you haven't heard any good arguments that God can alter
logical and mathematical truths. "God is beyond human reasoning" isn't an
argument. It's just a claim. Moreover, it's one I can largely agree with, in
the sense that God far exceeds what we are capable of understanding. Similar,
I can accept that God isn't bounded by the universe. He created it, after all.
But there is simply nothing in either of those claims from which God's ability
to alter logical and mathematical truths follows. You just assert that it
does. Believe what you will. But it's not a belief justified by any
sound arguments.
> I don't see why philosophers can't just leave God out of it when they talk
> about logic and math and whatever else they're interested in.
A very odd thing to say. From what does this sentiment spring? A sense of
piety? Do you find it impious to wonder about the concept of God? Why would
that be? Jesus himself said many things that are supposed to get us to think
hard about God, notably the parables. Don't you think it's a good thing to try
to relate God to the things we're "interested in"? How does one even avoid
*doing* that? Aren't you yourself violating this proscription when you claim
that God is beyond human reasoning? You must have come to that conclusion in
the course of thinking about something that your interested in, right?
-chris
Chris Barnes
>> At any rate, this entire line of argument relies on the assumption
>> that the statement "there is nothing God can't do" is a truth.
>>
>> It's not.
>>
>> God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it.
>> God cannot sin.
>> ...ad infinitum
>
> That was my point. But Deathdog wanted to assume it
> was true. I was just trying to point out it's not.
I guess my point in making the statement is that not all Christians say
it's true. Obvious to me, but perhaps not to non-Christians.
> Why can't God make a rock so big he can't lift it?
> The answer is because that doesn't make any sense. But if,
> like Deathdog, you want to assume He can, then you immediately
> arrive at the condition that there is something He can't do
> (lift it). So, God cannot make 2 + 3 = 17.
Yep..
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
- George Welch, TAMU Physics professor
(paraphrasing a previous USENET post)
George R. Welch
Chris Barnes <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote:
>
> Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
> with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
> - George Welch, TAMU Physics professor
> (paraphrasing a previous USENET post)
I really hope you get bored with this quickly.
Here's a better one:
You can take a certain amount of pride in the fact that
you are the direct, lineal descendant of an unbroken
line of individuals who were considered dead sexy and
gorgeous. Every single one of your ancestors scored!
"Floyd"
:x
Chris Barnes
ROTFL - I suspect this is similar to that TV show on the "Spike"
network, namely "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge". It's SO dumb that
it acts as a black hole - just sucking you in to where you have to watch
it (or in the case of the quote - use it).
There's just something visual about the quote that I can't get out of my
head. Plus, I'm sure El Goob is one of them in a caveman outfit beating
the ground!
> You can take a certain amount of pride in the fact that
> you are the direct, lineal descendant of an unbroken
> line of individuals who were considered dead sexy and
> gorgeous. Every single one of your ancestors scored!
Sadly, this doesn't have to be true. My great-great grandmother might
have just been a drunken whore when the Navy pulled into town. Such men
are not generally known for their pickiness (not to mention the fact
that they were probably drunk too).
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground